“This is a political document, not a scientific report, and it is a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain. The media has failed to report that the IPCC Summary for Policymakers was not approved by scientists but by UN political delegates and bureaucrats.” – Sen. James Inhofe, 2007

Every single word in that document has to be signed off on by 116 countries. That means that the IPCC report reflects the most conservative viewpoint.

“Cause” is what the science says. There’s small discussion over whether it is a bit less than 100% or 100%. The problem for those who hold out for less than 100% is that they cannot identify anything which might account for that bit of warming.

If you’re looking at the EIA’s 2018 predictions for wind (8.7c/kWh) and solar (14.4c/kWh) when prices are running half as much in 2013 do you not realize that something is wrong with their numbers?

Take out the subsidies. Add back in 1.15 c/kWh (10 years of 2.3c/kWh PTC over a 20 year contract). That makes wind 5c and solar 6c. And those prices include real estate costs, taxes, and owner profits which are not included in the EIA 8.7c and 14.4c estimates.

Come on guy. You made a huge mistake. Now it’s time to take on new information and straighten out your thinking.

“Influence,” not cause.

They say this influence is greatest “since the mid-20th century.” Blaming what happened in 1860 on humans is contrary to the IPCC report.

You are a science denier.

Finally, solar advocates always says it is comparable in price, then they immediately demand subsidies. If solar was the same price, it wouldn’t need subsidies.
Either you care about getting the maximum CO2 reduction for the dollar or you don’t. No independent study says solar comes close to other forms of renewables. Claims otherwise are based on wishful, but unscientific, thinking.

1- you focus on the subsidies given to solar in your piece, but you don’t mention the subsidies given to other energy sources, including externalities. it’s completely unbalanced. if you take these into account elsewhere, that doesn’t make up for the lack of balance here.

2- yes, you rightfully note here eventually that labor cost is not the same as total cost, yet you spend a lot of time talking about how labor cost is higher for solar. that is actually good for our economy. and it’s good that a huge portion of the cost of fossil fuels (fuel) is free and local when it comes to solar. the important thing is to look at total cost, and also the value of the electricity. when you do, solar starts to look very competitive.

3- back to cost, with subsidies, a solar power plant in Arizona is to sell electricity for 5.8 c/kWh. with subsidies, about 10.5 c/kWh. coal would be 10-14 c/kWh with subsides or 19-41 c/kWh without subsidies. natural gas — highly debatable. wind — cheaper, but is actually a great complement to solar, more than a competitor.

Furthermore, still, you ignore the point of subsidies — to drive down technology costs. This is working extremely well with solar power.

Solar panels, at some point, may get old enough to justify swapping out with new ones. If 18% panels are down to 80% after 40 years the farm owners may find it profitable to swap them out for much higher output panels and boost the income from the real estate and transmission investment.

An installation boom? Sure. But jobs will endure, just at a lower level after the boom.

(It’s likely a 30 year boom. Who knows what the world will be like in 30 years?)